Forum:Demotion of SpartHawg948
It wasn't supposed to come to this, but abuse of power has led to it. It was clearly spelled out to the administration that they were held responsible for the creation of the new Chat Policy vote. SpartHawg showed that he had no interest in putting it up, and stated than any old user should be the one to do it. Why should we when I specifically called for the staff to put up the new vote? Why didn't Lancer or Commdor put it up when Spart didn't? Why did the administrators decide that following the rules were beneath them? Nineteen users voted in favor of the new vote, and their trust was betrayed by the administrators not carrying out their end of the policy. Our own admin guidelines state that “Ideally an admin shouldn't be considered "in charge". The ideal admin is just someone who is trusted to have a few extra buttons and to use them for the benefit of the Wikia community.” As such, administrators are expected to follow the rules just as every other user would. Bureaucrats are given that title because they are expected to be deeply trusted by the community. If we can’t trust ours to accept and follow the rules he put into place, how can we function as a wiki? This does not come from a place of spite or personal hate. I have been in communication with Wikia Support for almost a month ensuring that they were aware of the situation in the event anything drastic occurred. They were the ones who told me that I should put this vote forward, and they will be the ones watching to ensure that nothing goes wrong here. Do not mistake this call of a demotion as a clear-cut solution. I certainly don’t anticipate that all of the hostilities will disappear simply by removing one user’s admin rights. This is about the principle of rules being broken by those in power, and that cannot be allowed to continue. You may be hesitant because you are worried about what will happen to the empty B-crat seat. That is largely up to both the ME Wiki’s admins, as well as Wikia itself. However, if you feel that you are qualified for an administrative position here, and you will follow the rules as well as enforce them, feel no pressure to apply. We have five other administrators on this site who are almost entirely inactive, and it couldn't hurt to get some new blood in their seats. Not to mention, having more administrators would reduce the workload for those who currently hold positions. This whole issue is one that can be largely discussed, if needed, after this vote takes place. Voting Yea #As proposer. --Mr. Mittens (talk) 23:23, February 19, 2013 (UTC) # See below -Algol- (talk) 19:56, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # its funnier this way --Officer Eddie Lang (talk) 19:11, February 24, 2013 (UTC) Abstain #--Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 23:57, February 19, 2013 (UTC) #Kain's got the right idea--TW6464 (talk) 20:26, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # A vote of confidence, If ever I've seen one. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 00:00, February 21, 2013 (UTC) Nay #NAY_--Perkins98 (talk) 23:28, February 19, 2013 (UTC) #See below.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:34, February 19, 2013 (UTC) #Spart has been a good admin. Bluegear93 (talk) 23:48, February 19, 2013 (UTC) # LilyheartsLiara (talk) 23:49, February 19, 2013 (UTC) #To quote Lancer - This oozes fail.Garhdo (talk) 23:57, February 19, 2013 (UTC) #see below --DeldiRe 00:14, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #"The immaturity in this proposal is staggering." Ayup. --Zxjkl (talk) 00:56, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 01:00, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #To say this is immature is an understatement. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:37, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #My vote should go without saying... SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:44, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #-- Dammej (talk) 01:48, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # This proposal looks a bit childish to me. --MasterDassJennir (talk) 02:08, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # -- Commdor (Talk) 02:22, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #Wow, seriously? 4Ferelden (talk) 07:07, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #see below. BeoW0lfe (talk) 16:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #Don't even need to comment why. All the above comments on NAY!! are how I feel on this.JediSpectre117 (talk) 20:19, February 20, 2013 (UTC) #Just no Midnightpiranha (talk) 20:42, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # This wiki needs more admins, not less. Getting rid of arguably the most level-headed admin over something this trivial is just plain stupid. Avg Man (talk) 20:56, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # Short answer: No, long answer: Noooooo. LeoJo (talk) 23:23, February 20, 2013 (UTC) # You're targeting the wrong one. TheUnknown285 (talk) 03:25, February 22, 2013 (UTC) # I would have to refuse to acquiesce to this request Skitz470 (talk) 07:59, February 23, 2013 (UTC) # Spart is a good and a cool-headed admin. I don't think it's a good idea to vote him out. --Nord Ronnoc (talk) 08:16, February 23, 2013 (UTC) # While I agree that the way Ygrain's ban and the voting for the chat policy was handled was a complete and utter farce, demoting SpartHawg over it seems a tad over-kill. Aleksandr the Great (talk) 09:18, February 23, 2013 (UTC) # Okay I've been watching from the sidelines as stuff went down. I think calling for a demotion is slightly over kill, especially when the conditions were altered weeks after and the proposal. Admins are people too! People make mistakes.Phoenix96 (talk) 10:16, February 23, 2013 (UTC) # You don't like some one so you want to crucify them? The people supporting this are juvenile.TheBiggerTicket (talk) 03:59, February 24, 2013 (UTC) # -- The Illusive Man (talk) 04:18, February 24, 2013 (UTC) Discussion The immaturity in this proposal is staggering. You demand the guy who has been with this wiki since the beginning step down because of this one incident? So the past 6 years are suddenly made invalid? Seriously, just stop with this petty vendetta. Your proposal was clearly said a be "a formal request for a new vote". Emphasis on "request". And if indeed admins are just users with a few extra buttons, than their is no reason the users can't do it themselves, because there isn't a difference between the two.--Legionwrex (talk) 23:40, February 19, 2013 (UTC) Also why is it only sparthawg, he has done a great job, you don't have a good reason for this!, maybe some canidates to promosion ,but i won't let him step down, because of a stupid little incident, and that you go behind our back and tells lies to wikia is dissapointning! --Perkins98 (talk) 23:55, February 19, 2013 (UTC) As a general observation, I'm surprised it's not Lancer that's getting this sort of flak for once. People always seem to have an issue with him. --Kainzorus Prime Walkie-talkie 23:58, February 19, 2013 (UTC) :I noticed that too...--TW6464 (talk) 20:29, February 20, 2013 (UTC) I'm guessing you didn't bother to check if SpartHawg had actually given the response that he had promised—seeing as he did indeed say on the "revote" vote forum that the admins had decided to hold a new vote (the link refuses to not be stupid). But do you know what was formally spelled out, as Legionwrex points out? I'm going to be quite blunt here. While I did not agree with the proposed policy change that came into being over the canvasing issue, I did not feel that it was a great atrocity and abuse of power on the part of the admins. The only reason I supported the "revote" vote was because I was sick of the vindictive bullies that had turned the admins' passing of the tainted vote into an obsessive vendetta against the admins. And I already regret doing so. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 00:01, February 20, 2013 (UTC) There is a real problem with the administration of this wiki such as there is not enough active admin and the action and attitude of active can be discuss on. Nevertheless, Sparthawg, despite his bad chat policy, is not the one to blame for the recently war (admin vs users). So I will vote against it. --DeldiRe 00:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC) Just as a comment to you DeldiRe, well saiden, i agree that we can remove, inactive admins/buraucrats, but i support the admins. anyway --Perkins98 (talk) 00:19, February 20, 2013 (UTC) Wow. I honestly have no words to describe this but I will try to come up with a few. The level of someone being immature here is completely off the wall, out of the galaxy, and a parallel universe sort of issue. Did the proposer ever consider contacting the user in question and politely reminding them? No, they just went off the deep end. There was a request to open a new vote, that was it a request. He did say there would be a new vote, but given the fact he hasn't been online in the last few days should say something. People are forgetful, people cannot always be online every second, of every minute, of every day. We all have things going on outside the wiki and we always cannot be on and we again all forget things. But instead of considering that, the user who opened this just went completely off the wall and forgot everything, kept on the vindictive bandwagon, and just rolled with the punches. Lancer1289 (talk) 01:37, February 20, 2013 (UTC) Unless something drastic has changed since I was more active, SpartHawg has often been the most level-headed of admins on the wiki. SpartHawg was (is?) usually the champion for there being fewer controls rather than more. The exception to this is when evidence is presented that controls are quite necessary for proper enforcement or administration. This is what brought about the 'revised chat policy' vote. It became clear that the implementation of this policy was done in such a way that the community at large balked. Again he saw 'yes, something is probably wrong here', and agreed that a revote should be held when it was clear that this is the community wish. It is clearly stated in the Revote page near the bottom that a new policy vote should be created by someone else. After all, the admins think the current policy works. Why would they create a new policy? It seems foolish to look at the steps taken to right this wrong and decide that the solution is to oust someone who is genuinely trying to help. SpartHawg can be sardonic with his tone (present in the examples highlighted by Mr. Mittens), but to interpret this as more than a statement of frustration by somebody that's been continuously villainized is being quite unjust. Anyway, my stance is clear. SpartHawg does considerably more good for the wiki than he does bad. If there are grievous misappropriations of power, it may require another look; but the behavior highlighted by this proposal is not an example of anything of the sort. -- Dammej (talk) 01:48, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :First off, thanks for the show of support you guys (and gals). Seriously. It's pretty touching. Heart-warming, really. If, of course, you believe I have a heart and am not the heartless monster I'm sometimes depicted as. :Now, to address the charges: Mr. Mittens, you say that the admins have decided that "following the rules is beneath them". Please tell me what rule it is I've broken. Please. Here's what happened. The community voted on a formal request that the admins hold a new vote. You'll note from the images that you so graciously provided, that the wording was vague. At no point was it specified that the new vote must be initiated by the admins. The admins discussed, a new vote was agreed upon, and I said as much. I also said that anyone who wanted to start the new vote was welcome to do so. To be perfectly honest, I'd assumed that, since you (still referring to Mr. Mittens here) had taken charge on the whole "demand a new vote" thing, you'd be more than happy to initiate a new vote. Turns out I was mistaken. :I'd also like to point out that if, as you say, you've been in contact with Wikia about this, you must know that I cannot "remove my statuses immediately". Not because of obstinacy on my part, but because Wikia doesn't allow it. Bureaucrats cannot take bureaucrat powers away from any users, not even (to the best of my knowledge), themselves. If this passes, I'll be more than happy to take the matter up with Wikia, since it was a Wikia staffer who promoted me. Personally, I do think this reeks of vendetta, coming as it does from the person who called the Mass Effect Wiki community a cancerous cesspool. But that's just my take. :Again, thanks for the (thus far) overwhelming display of support from the community. Even (especially) from those of you I haven't always seen eye-to-eye with. SpartHawg948 (talk) 01:59, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::Wait a second...Sparthawg voted against the proposal?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Shocking....--Legionwrex (talk) 02:06, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :::I know, right? My chance to get off the hook, and it looks like I blew it! :P SpartHawg948 (talk) 02:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::::I forgot about that specific quote. Provide more insight on this, it does. Lancer1289 (talk) 02:13, February 20, 2013 (UTC) MrMittens, really?! You do realise you're now destroying whatever credibility "your" side had at the beginning of this? You would be better have another audio drama or two up your sleeve that you need publicity for, as thinking that you would do that for real defies any sort of logic. 4Ferelden (talk) 07:07, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :Mr. Mittens has yet to respond to my initial query asking for substantiation of his claim that I violated any site rules, nor has he responded to the overwhelming opposition to his proposal, which has already received more votes against than did the chat policy he bemoans. So, since we're still awaiting responses to those, I'd like to add one more question: What is this really about? In the proposal, Mr. Mittens says it's not about personal dislike or hatred, but rather is because I personally did not initiate the revote. Yet, when making his arguments for the revote (please examine his second comment), Mr. Mittens stated that what was being discussed was whether or not the admins would allow a revote, not whether or not I personally would initiate the revote. If I may quote Mr. Mittens: :"If you allow a revote, you will solve the issue regarding whether or not the community views you as giving a damn about them by showing them that you will allow them to have some degree of input in policies that they vote on. If you do not allow the revote, this problem will continue." (emphasis added) :So again, I have to ask, what is the real purpose here? If, as you stated, the issue is whether or not I (and the other admins) will allow a revote, there is no issue here. I've already made it abundantly clear. Not only will I allow a revote, as you asked, I'm encouraging a revote. If, Mr. Mittens, this truly isn't a matter of your personal dislike of me, then surely you're prepared to drop this, since I've already solved the issue, per your own arguments. SpartHawg948 (talk) 10:09, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::I truly don't think he is going to respond. I think he expected the community to rally around him and that clearly hasn't happened. ::And hey, he violated the language policy. Lancer1289 (talk) 15:28, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :::Yeah, you're probably right. As for the language policy, after he originally left that comment I advised him of the policy and, to the best of my knowledge, he's not violated it since, so I'm not too concerned about it. SpartHawg948 (talk) 20:32, February 20, 2013 (UTC) While i believe that some new admins could ease some of the tension here, this was NOT the way to do it. Confucius once said, "Man who throws first punch admits his argument has no more valid points." the user side has more valid points, and he has shot that argument down. likely permanently. I have to vote against. BeoW0lfe (talk) 16:02, February 20, 2013 (UTC) I'm somewhat amused that so much of the trouble on this site has been caused by block-headed-ness over what, otherwise, would be a very simple addition to the wiki; a chat program. And the constant faux-bureaucracy just adds more and more comedy to it. Long, illustrious speeches denouncing one 'side' or the other, the validity of others' arguments... yadda, yadda, yadda. I couldn't write a better farce if I tried. Is it quite possible to just cut all of the silly stuff out and just add a chat program where the idiots can be weened out over time? Is it really so difficult? EzzyD (talk) 16:06, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :I agree. We should cut all the silly stuff out and try to make chat work since it's obviously not going anywhere. Maybe a good place to start cutting out the silly stuff would be forums created for the sole purpose of going after individual editors? Because this farcical witch hunt of a forum is the silliest thing I've seen in my I've at this wiki. SpartHawg948 (talk) 19:41, February 20, 2013 (UTC) That's a very interesting proposition. Unexpected, but interesting. Despite that this particular example of our administration not creating a new chat policy vote as requested, being a relatively minor one, there is this one thing. They refused to fix the mistake they made themselves, as the chat is still dead. Let's look at the bigger picture. Our wiki is in dire need of good admins. Our wiki is suffering from a community divide at least two of the current admins (at least 2 out of 3) created by artificial restrictions, questionable policies and frivolous blocks. So yes, in general, I do support the demotion. Compared to Lancer, SpartHawg is not that bad. Compared to how an admin should act, he does deserve a replacement. I'd suggest Legionwrex takes adminship. -Algol- (talk) 20:10, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :I think it says a lot that the people who are voting for this "proposal" are the ones who have done nothing on this wiki as of late but throw a fit over this affair. LilyheartsLiara (talk) 20:23, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::To briefly reply to one of -Algol-'s points, one that seems to be a recurring theme among 2/3 of the votes in favor. You say that the admins "refused to fix the mistake they made themselves". Correct me if I'm in error, but I'm assuming you're referring to the fact that the revote, which was approved by the admins, was not initiated by the admins. Mr. Mittens has made that same point. For starters, you have to bear in mind that, while arguing in favor of the revote, Mr. Mittens said that the issue up for a vote was whether or not the admins would allow a revote. This the admins have done. Bear in mind also Dammej's point, namely that "After all, the admins think the current policy works. Why would they create a new policy?" Finally, I'd like to point out the reason why I personally did not initiate the new vote, since I can only speak for myself on that point. I didn't personally initiate it because, to be quite honest, I'd assumed that either Mr. Mittens or -Algol- would leap at the chance to be the one to do so. I figured, since both those editors had been so vocal and taken such a leading role in opposing the policy change, that they'd see it as a form of vindication to be the ones to initiate the vote that would have repealed the policy. After all, it'd be (as I saw it) pretty much the ultimate concession that they'd won, and that their effort was successful. To paraphrase Dr. Evil, I was trying to throw them a freaking bone here! Turns out that, as the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished. I tried to throw them a bone but apparently ended up giving them the rope they're trying to hang me with. SpartHawg948 (talk) 20:41, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :::I do not know if you misread me intentionally or not, but regardless, let's get to the point. Thing is that the admins proposed a 50 edits restriction. Naturally, it failed. Then the admins proposed a 20 edits restriction. Naturally it failed too, but the admins decided to implement it a bit unnaturally, using the non-existing "canvassing" as an excuse. Then the admins saw the dead chat and, judging from your own statements, started to have doubts. What Mittens proposed was actually throwing you a bone, in case you didn't notice. Giving you a chance to fix a mistake you made and a problem you created. But you refused. :::You want me to start a new vote for the chat policy? Fine, will be done. But you just wasted your chance to improve and spare yourself the surprise of people calling you a bad admin. Something you were so unhappy with in my blog. A bad admin is an admin, who (among other things) refuses to admit his own mistakes. -Algol- (talk) 21:42, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::::Algol now youre getting out of line. there have been bad, unreasonable, offensive, and downright stupid decisions made by the admins, but you are doing nothing but making the situation worse. This proposal was a bad idea, of all the admins, (one in particular) who have a good argument to remove, Spart is not among them. Spart might just be the main reason this pissing match hasnt gotten any worse than it already is. Insulting him of all the admins is just plain wrong. BeoW0lfe (talk) 21:47, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::::: As one of the most able admins here, then, I think he's quite capable of speaking in his own defense; wouldn't you agree, BeoW0lfe? EzzyD (talk) 21:53, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, thanks for pointin that out Ezzy, this is just so bloody frustrating that more people need to stop it. you make a good point, but if we leave it up to the admins alone to defend themselves, it reinforces their view of, "its us vs them" when nobody is without blame. BeoW0lfe (talk) 22:01, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :::::::BeoW0lfe, I get your hint. Where I to propose a demotion, I would have proposed to demote Lancer. But this topic is about SpartHawg, not Lancer. So a question: how it could have gotten any worse? -Algol- (talk) 23:04, February 20, 2013 (UTC) Well then, by -Algol-'s standards, I must be a good admin. After all, I've freely and openly admitted that the admins made a mistake here. I also said as much when the admins were discussing holding a revote. The rest of -Algol-'s comment is just him re-hashing his personal grudge against me, and trotting out the same tired arguments that hold no more weight than they did originally. As for Mr. Mittens throwing me a bone, please. If that were the case, he wouldn't have immediately turned around and attacked me after he'd already gotten exactly what he wanted. That's not throwing someone a bone. That's a personal vendetta. And yes, EzzyD, I think I'm perfectly capable of speaking in my own defense. Unfortunately, virtually none of the questions I've asked the people voting for this ludicrous proposal have been answered. And BeoW0lfe brings up a good point here. There are a few folks who are definitely trying to foster an atmosphere of "admins vs. everybody else". SpartHawg948 (talk) 22:17, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :Thing is, Mittens didn't get what he wanted. What he wanted was you correcting your mistake. Which you are refusing to do right now, actually. Because there is a big difference between "admitting" your mistake and actually correcting it. As is between "discussing holding a revote" and actually holding a revote. Really, words are cheap. And because your words seem particularly cheap to me, that is why I voted in favor of the demotion, not because of this particular incident. Sadly, it is far from being a single one. -Algol- (talk) 23:04, February 20, 2013 (UTC) To everyone that agree's with mitten, now have almost 20 persons voted against the demotion, you have three choises *1 Live with it!, and stop crying over that you don't get your will *2 get the hell of this wiki *3 start your own wiki nobody makes your guys stay either!!! stop complaining, you just destroying this wiki! --Perkins98 (talk) 23:23, February 20, 2013 (UTC) :Well, seeing as Mr. Mittens' formal request for the admins to allow a revote passed, and since the admins agreed to Mr. Mitten's formal request that they allow a revote, yes, it seems like Mittens got exactly what he wanted. Unless, of course, you're referring to conditions he added after the revote request passed. I did correct my mistake when I advocated for, and voted for the revote when the admins discussed it after Mr. Mittens' proposal passed. I then laid out in specific detail what would and wouldn't need to be done, to make it as easy as possible for whoever started the revote to get the ball rolling. And yes, words are cheap. Speaking of which, how's the revote coming along, -Algol-? I seem to recall you saying you'd get that going, and as you say, there's a big difference between discussing holding a revote and actually holding one. And my reply, saying that whoever wanted to start the revote could go ahead and start it, has been sitting there unanswered for quite some time now. That alone speaks volumes as to the true intent of Mr. Mittens with this proposal. SpartHawg948 (talk) 23:33, February 20, 2013 (UTC) ::Don't you worry, I did start it. I think since all of us kinda have stuff to do, several hours of delay are acceptable, but not several days. The whole point was to allow you to correct your mistake (as you're allegedly admitting it, right?) by putting up a new vote. After all, you "broke" the chat, so why wouldn't you help fixing it? You don't want to do this? Fine, someone else will do it for you (me in this case). As for what Mittens' true intent was... I dunno, ask the man himself, but I highly doubt either of us knows for sure. -Algol- (talk) 00:06, February 21, 2013 (UTC) :::I have asked. He has thus far declined to comment, likely since this vote appears to be going against him rather decisively. As for "correcting" my "mistake", again, I'd kinda fifigured that going along with what Mr. Mittens had proposed when he put up his "revote" forum fit that bill. Apparently not, since I didn't also comply with conditions Mr. Mittens chose to add weeks later. SpartHawg948 (talk) 00:28, February 21, 2013 (UTC) So... Since EzzyD is a confirmed sock-puppet, shouldn't his vote be stricken? I'd do it, but that would DEFINITELY look like a conflict of interest, since I'd e removing a vote to remove me... :P SpartHawg948 (talk) 07:48, February 24, 2013 (UTC) ---- The voting period has concluded, and the policy proposal has been rejected by 3-3-26. The policy will not be implemented. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:25, February 27, 2013 (UTC)